Wimbledon: Tennis needs new rising stars
Wimbledon so far is getting less attention that usual. This is partly because it is coinciding with other events such as the Cricket World Cup, the Women’s Football World Cup and Sky Sports’ substitute for action on the field, its feverish coverage of football’s transfer market. It’s also because, without Andy Murray in the Singles, we are reduced again to the old speculation: will any British player reach the second week of the Men’s Singles?
There’s also a certain weariness about the Men’s game. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are marvellous players all of them – yes, of course, undeniable. But isn’t it time for a Changing of the Guard? Add in Murray with his two titles and nobody else has won the title since Lleyton Hewitt in 2002. (Hewitt, now Australia’s Davis Cup captain, is still playing in the Doubles, and, partnered by Jordan Thompson, won his first round match on Wednesday.) Of course, predictions are rash, and it may be that, between this column being written and read, Nadal will have lost to the talented but tiresome Nick Kyrgios.
Yet, if Nadal survives this difficult match, it would be no surprise if, come the semi-finals next Friday, the Triumvirate are all in place. We have been looking for some talented younger player to break through; we have been looking for some time now. It’s not so long – well, actually, it must be six or seven years – since the Bulgarian Grigor Dimitrov was being hailed as “the new Fed”. No more; this year he’s out already. Likewise Dominic Thiem, the French Open finalist, defeated by Nadal (of course) this year and last at Roland Garros, has already packed his bags. So too has the lanky young German Alexander Zverev and Stefan Tsitsipas, the Greek who is a joy to watch, while Borna Coric, another favourite of mine, never even made an appearance on account of a back injury. What’s wrong with these guys? One might put the question in McEnroe mode, remembering that he reached his first semi-final as a stroppy 18-year-old. Do they make a lot of money too easily? Are they cossetted by their entourage? Nobody has the answer, and Tsitsipas remarks with rueful honesty that Federer and Nadal were winning Slam tournaments at his age.
Now attention focuses on the 18-year-old Canadian, Felix Auger-Aliassime. He looks a lovely richly-talented player, but will he, like others hailed as the next big thing, prove to be like the seed in the Parable of the Sower which was sown on stony ground and sprang up quickly but withered because its roots were shallow? Early days yet, but let’s hope he doesn’t disappoint us. Apart from his talent he has one thing going for him: everybody is going to call him Felix, if only because his surname is so easy to forget.
If there is a log-jam at the top of the men’s game, the women’s is wide-open. Too wide-open indeed. With Serena Williams seemingly entering the twilight years of her remarkable career, there is no dominant player. One week’s champion loses in the first round next week. Who knows how many current players have won one of the Slams or, more to the point, how many have won more than one? Moreover, given that most viewers are aware of tennis only during the Wimbledon fortnight, the plethora of Central and East Europeans with their names which are so similar and hard to remember makes it difficult for fans to remember who’s who. It’s not like the days of Chrissie and Martina and Steffi.
However a new star seems to have arisen – has indeed been identified. This is the 15-year-old American, Cori Gauff. Her first round victory over Venus Williams – naturally her childhood hero – wasn’t perhaps a great surprise. After all, if she is only fifteen, Venus is…well, let’s just say she won her first Wimbledon in 2000, three years before Roger Federer won his. Still, Ms Gauff’s second round defeat of Magdalena Ribarikova from Slovakia was certainly impressive, given that Ribarikova was a semi-finalist here only two years ago. But who knew that, till told or reminded by the commentators?
Still Cori Gauff may be just what the women’s game needs now that the sun may be setting on the Williams sisters . Is she too young? Martina Hingis was only fifteen when she won the Doubles at Wimbledon and in 1996, aged sixteen, she became the youngest Ladies Singles Wimbledon champion since Lottie Dodd in 1878. Indeed, that year she actually won all Slams. Match that if you can, Ms Gauff.
And then or rather some time before, there was Maureen Connolly, “Little Mo”. She was sixteen when she won her first U.S. Title in 1951. She won Wimbledon in 1952-3-4. Overall she won nine Slam titles, with a Grand Slam in 1953. She didn’t compete in the Australian or American tournaments in 1954. In her nine Slam finals, she dropped only one set. A riding injury when her leg was crushed between her horse and a heavy truck ended her career a couple of years before she was old enough to vote in a Presidential election.
“Little Mo” was certainly the greatest woman player of the last quarter-century of the amateur era, certainly one of the greatest of all time. Just like Rocky Marciano, the heavyweight champion of her day, she saw off every challenger, and you can’t do more than that.
Talking of the unvanquished, one should remember to switch over to the racing from Sandown Park on Saturday to see if Enable, twice winner of the Prix de l’Arc deTriomphe, can again win the Eclipse Stakes in her first appearance of the season, and so retain her unbeaten record, which already puts her in the “Little Mo” class.